Goldtalk Forum  

Go Back   Goldtalk Forum > News and Politics > Religion
Portal FAQ Members List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 07-02-2009, 1:57 PM
NightMgr NightMgr is offline
Retired
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: DFW, TX
Posts: 6,095
NightMgr has disabled reputation
Default Legitimate vs illegitimate religions

How do you tell the difference?

In this article, it claims that judges and juries have difficulty in deciding when it's ok for a parent to withhold medical care from a child for religious reasons. They claim that for newer, less popular religions, people are skeptical of their being "legimate" religions.

How do you tell the difference.

Wouldn't you think the Roman Empire would claim early Christianity was an illegitimate religion?

If someone says "I was never a religious person, but God himself appeared to me and said to do this and not do that" why isn't that enough? Is a claim of personal revelation not to be believed?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31664340/ns/us_news-faith/

Courts face new challenge in faith healing cases
Lesser-known religions raise thorny legal issues when it comes to sick kids

Quote:
NASHVILLE, Tennessee - Most U.S. states have child abuse laws allowing some religious exemptions for parents who shun medicine for their sick children, but a few recent cases highlight thorny legal issues for parents following less-recognized faiths.

Existing laws have gradually accounted for more well-known and established faiths, such as Pentecostalism, Christian Science and Jehovah's Witnesses.

But recent cases in the news have judges and child care advocates dealing with parents who claim adherence to lesser-known faiths, such as the Minnesota family following an Internet-based group's American Indian beliefs, and an independent church in the western state of Oregon that has been investigated in the past for the deaths of members' sick children.

Legal and religious scholars say it's becoming more difficult for courts to decide when to honor the religious beliefs of parents and when to order conventional medical treatment for extremely sick children.

The manslaughter trial of an Oregon couple who claim they were following their religious beliefs in the 2008 pneumonia death of their 1-year-old daughter began Monday. Carl and Raylene Worthington are members of Followers of Christ Church, which has been investigated for past child deaths.

In Tennessee, Jacqueline Crank and her minister Ariel Sherman face child neglect charges in the death of her 15-year-old daughter Jessica, who died in 2002 with a basketball-sized tumor on her shoulder. Prosecutors say based on Sherman's advice, the girl's mother relied on prayer instead of medicine.

Sherman has been accused of being a cult leader whose Universal Life Church is not a legitimate religion. He has denied such charges and says the church is Christian-based and embraces the Bible.

Believers in faith healing point to a Biblical verse in the Epistle of James, which describes how church elders should be called in to pray over the sick. There's no mention of doctors, and literalists interpret it to mean medical treatment should be eschewed over prayer.

Exemption law 'too vague'
Gregory P. Isaacs, an attorney for Crank, who is out on bond, argues that Tennessee's religious exemption law is untested and too vague.

"It really has a tremendous amount of problems," Isaacs said. "What is an organized religion and what is an ordained minister? What illnesses can you attempt to heal by faith? Those are the two pitfalls in the statute. That's not what's really clear."

Jim Dwyer, a William and Mary Law School professor who has written articles about and participated in litigation on the topic, said it is often more complicated for courts to discern cases with unaffiliated religions because judges and juries aren't as familiar with them and are skeptical of their legitimacy.
Continues at link provided....
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 07-02-2009, 3:51 PM
Rafael's Avatar
Rafael Rafael is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: North Texas
Posts: 9,171
Rafael has disabled reputation
Default

It doesn"t matter.

If the state ignores religion, then it makes no difference. The case you related is one of parental rights.

As for taxes. I say, don't tax, ignore churches. Tax every person.
__________________
DON"T STEAL. The government hates competition.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 07-02-2009, 4:23 PM
jtdc jtdc is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 14,824
jtdc is a splendid one to beholdjtdc is a splendid one to beholdjtdc is a splendid one to beholdjtdc is a splendid one to beholdjtdc is a splendid one to beholdjtdc is a splendid one to beholdjtdc is a splendid one to behold
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by NightMgr
How do you tell the difference?
It should be irrelevant. If the state orders any medical treatment, the state should pay for it! It should be the burden of the state to show that any required treatment will likely guarantee a better life, not just life. Many treatments cause suffering, in some cases for the rest of that life. That decision should be up to the patient. When young children are the patients, their parents should, by default, be regarded as the best to know the child's desires in such matters.

The easiest filter would be to do away with tax exemption for religions. I suspect there would be far fewer to scrutinize.

Ailments such as Pneumonia, flu, broken bones and the like can be fully recovered from. So withholding of proven medical treatment for those ailments should be prohibited. If faith is the cure, there would be no need for any treatment. So I would not recognize that as a sole treatment.

I agree with Rafael that it is one of parental rights.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 07-02-2009, 4:32 PM
luknikfan luknikfan is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 2,465
luknikfan has disabled reputation
Default

If it is a minor then the state has a right to intervene IMO.

Just as they would in a child abuse case.

An adult refusing treatment is one thing - a child something else totally.

It is an impossible road for courts to determine a "legitimate' religion. That qualifier is absurd as to believers of most religions, all other religions are illegitimate.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 07-02-2009, 4:36 PM
luknikfan luknikfan is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 2,465
luknikfan has disabled reputation
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jtdc View Post
It should be irrelevant. If the state orders any medical treatment, the state should pay for it! It should be the burden of the state to show that any required treatment will likely guarantee a better life, not just life. Many treatments cause suffering, in some cases for the rest of that life. That decision should be up to the patient. When young children are the patients, their parents should, by default, be regarded as the best to know the child's desires in such matters.

The easiest filter would be to do away with tax exemption for religions. I suspect there would be far fewer to scrutinize.

Ailments such as Pneumonia, flu, broken bones and the like can be fully recovered from. So withholding of proven medical treatment for those ailments should be prohibited. If faith is the cure, there would be no need for any treatment. So I would not recognize that as a sole treatment.

I agree with Rafael that it is one of parental rights.
I think indeed the time has come to eliminate all tax exemption for churches with the exception of their worship space and money donated therein. Religiius schools maybe too.

Beyond that, giving tax breaks to religions many of which are in business, outside the prime role of church and preaching, is absurd.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 07-02-2009, 4:51 PM
Orin's Avatar
Orin Orin is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Republic of Texas
Posts: 11,978
Orin is a splendid one to beholdOrin is a splendid one to beholdOrin is a splendid one to beholdOrin is a splendid one to beholdOrin is a splendid one to beholdOrin is a splendid one to beholdOrin is a splendid one to behold
Default

Quote:
Beyond that, giving tax breaks to religions many of which are in business, outside the prime role of church and preaching, is absurd
.

So is the income tax that spurned the absurdity of tax breaks for anything. Point your outrage in the right direction.
__________________
Deel Leit laafe baarfiessich rum un die annre hen ken Schuh.

From the Pawn Shop Bill School of VooDoo economics:

"A 3-4% growth in the GDP, as proudly advertised by the Bushies, is close to a NEGATIVE GROWTH when you consider that the inflation was at least or close to 3-4%."
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 07-02-2009, 5:27 PM
NightMgr NightMgr is offline
Retired
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: DFW, TX
Posts: 6,095
NightMgr has disabled reputation
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rafael View Post
It doesn"t matter.

If the state ignores religion, then it makes no difference. The case you related is one of parental rights.

As for taxes. I say, don't tax, ignore churches. Tax every person.
One of the justifications for allowing the claimed parental right to withhold medical treatment for a minor is the free exercise of religion guaranteed in the bill of rights.

If a parent wants to withhold treatment because it would be inconvenient to make all those chemotherapy appointments as it would interfere with their golf game, courts have not allowed such a justification.

But, if the reason is "my religion does not allow chemotherapy, but we rely on prayer" then often that's sufficient- if you belong to a "legitimate" religion.

So, currently the courts are in the business of judging whether a religion and religious belief are legitimate. So, I think it's an important issue.

Speaking of taxes, it would be important on that issue, too. Probably zoning and a few other issues.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 07-02-2009, 6:27 PM
Rafael's Avatar
Rafael Rafael is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: North Texas
Posts: 9,171
Rafael has disabled reputation
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by NightMgr View Post
One of the justifications for allowing the claimed parental right to withhold medical treatment for a minor is the free exercise of religion guaranteed in the bill of rights.

If a parent wants to withhold treatment because it would be inconvenient to make all those chemotherapy appointments as it would interfere with their golf game, courts have not allowed such a justification.

But, if the reason is "my religion does not allow chemotherapy, but we rely on prayer" then often that's sufficient- if you belong to a "legitimate" religion.

So, currently the courts are in the business of judging whether a religion and religious belief are legitimate. So, I think it's an important issue.

Speaking of taxes, it would be important on that issue, too. Probably zoning and a few other issues.
Nah. I stand by my solution.
__________________
DON"T STEAL. The government hates competition.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 07-02-2009, 6:31 PM
Rafael's Avatar
Rafael Rafael is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: North Texas
Posts: 9,171
Rafael has disabled reputation
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by luknikfan View Post
I think indeed the time has come to eliminate all tax exemption for churches with the exception of their worship space and money donated therein. Religiius schools maybe too.

Beyond that, giving tax breaks to religions many of which are in business, outside the prime role of church and preaching, is absurd.
I agree with that. Even the "preachers" should pay income taxes just like everybody else.
__________________
DON"T STEAL. The government hates competition.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 07-02-2009, 7:02 PM
luknikfan luknikfan is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 2,465
luknikfan has disabled reputation
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rafael View Post
I agree with that. Even the "preachers" should pay income taxes just like everybody else.
I think as Islam grows in the US and with their businesses - they make the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints look like paupers when it comes to religious controlled businesses - that even conservative Christians will come to support a very strict/limited religious tax exemption.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 07-02-2009, 9:21 PM
schaabdl's Avatar
schaabdl schaabdl is offline
Tom Bean, TX
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 12,554
schaabdl has much to be proud ofschaabdl has much to be proud ofschaabdl has much to be proud ofschaabdl has much to be proud ofschaabdl has much to be proud ofschaabdl has much to be proud ofschaabdl has much to be proud ofschaabdl has much to be proud ofschaabdl has much to be proud of
Default

Since I don't believe in any exemptions / deductions you will find little argument from me if there was a single rate income tax. However, don't tax a church - it isn't any different from taxing a business - they collect taxes and simply filter it to the the government.
__________________
William Wallace: It's all for nothing if you don't have freedom.
William Wallace: Every man dies, not every man really lives.
*** Avatar *** Final picture at daughters wedding - 2 June 2012
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 07-03-2009, 8:53 AM
qosmann qosmann is offline
Active Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: North of San Francisco
Posts: 902
qosmann is a jewel in the roughqosmann is a jewel in the roughqosmann is a jewel in the roughqosmann is a jewel in the rough
Default

The Constitutional issue is a little more complex than simply "freedom of religion" and/or the tax exempt status of religion.

No right, constitutional or otherwise, is unlimited nor unrestricted. There is always the issue of whether or not there is an overriding community interest to be considered.

to use a simplistic example, do I have the right to shout and scream my political opinions at 3:00 AM in the middle of the street using a concert quality loudspeaker system? Why not? After all, I have the right of free speech.

To the case in point, does the community have an overriding interest in the protection of children, even when the religion of the parents deems what some in society think is not in the child's best interest?

then there is this whole federal versus state issue. After all, with regards to the first Amendment, it clearly states that "Congress shall make no law" It doesn't say that the states cannot. (This is a whole nuther argument for another day, BTW)
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 07-03-2009, 7:43 PM
Rifleman's Avatar
Rifleman Rifleman is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 10,019
Rifleman is a name known to allRifleman is a name known to allRifleman is a name known to allRifleman is a name known to allRifleman is a name known to allRifleman is a name known to all
Default

This is going to go away, because soon, Obamacare will be looking for folks to "check out early" in order to save money. The leftist tendancy to "protect the child" is more about trashing religion and parent's rights than really protecting the child: Read Hillary's book. It takes a Village...
__________________
"If you want a vision of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face - forever."

"War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength."

"In a time of universal deceit - telling the truth is a revolutionary act."

George Orwell

Obama simply wants to be the one wearing the "boot".
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 07-06-2009, 8:23 AM
NightMgr NightMgr is offline
Retired
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: DFW, TX
Posts: 6,095
NightMgr has disabled reputation
Default

The issue of "legitimate vs illegitimate" religion may be an issue in healthcare under a government plan.

Is opposition to abortion based on Christianity legitimate? How about a refusal to treat black people as some religions that claim to be Christian say? How about a belief in a world Gaia like consciousness and a belief that no children ought be brought in the world and a refusal to assist in births?

If "legitimate" religious belief is an allowed excuse for certain behaviors, then isn't the criteria used to distinguish legitimate from illegitimate important?

I mean, if something like Scientology can be considered legitimate, what should NOT be legitimate?
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 07-06-2009, 10:11 PM
Rafael's Avatar
Rafael Rafael is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: North Texas
Posts: 9,171
Rafael has disabled reputation
Default

Why are you determined to have government mixed up in religion?
__________________
DON"T STEAL. The government hates competition.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 07-07-2009, 7:41 AM
NightMgr NightMgr is offline
Retired
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: DFW, TX
Posts: 6,095
NightMgr has disabled reputation
Default

I'm not.

I think I've always been an absolutist on that issue.

But, if you say "Make no law about religion" and don't define what you mean by religion, you may make laws against religion even when you don't intend to.

Plus with the expansion of what religion seems to be over the years from a church organization dogma to an individualized ideology/theology, it's a problem to know if something is protected or not.

You know I'm a small government advocate. I want even less government including less involved in religion (that means both interfering with religion and advocating it with monuments and such).
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 07-07-2009, 10:29 AM
jtdc jtdc is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 14,824
jtdc is a splendid one to beholdjtdc is a splendid one to beholdjtdc is a splendid one to beholdjtdc is a splendid one to beholdjtdc is a splendid one to beholdjtdc is a splendid one to beholdjtdc is a splendid one to behold
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by NightMgr
But, if you say "Make no law about religion" and don't define what you mean by religion, you may make laws against religion even when you don't intend to.
But that's not what the Constitution said! So who were you quoting?
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 07-07-2009, 11:30 PM
Rifleman's Avatar
Rifleman Rifleman is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 10,019
Rifleman is a name known to allRifleman is a name known to allRifleman is a name known to allRifleman is a name known to allRifleman is a name known to allRifleman is a name known to all
Default

It's a phoney issue. jtdc is correct. And I don't want the Federal Government determining what is legitimate and what is not with regards to religion. That is what the left "wants" to do, and to a certain extent have already done!

And let me give you a true example. I don't remmeber the names but back on the Phil Donahue show, there was a certain pastor and his wife. The wife became suddenly ill and comatose. The Pastor, who most people would expect would fight for life, instead sued to have his wife taken off life support. The judge refused and ordered him to wait a week, in which time his wife made a full recovery. Somehow, the pastor insisted under the same circumstances in the future he would do the same thing, so he learned nothing. I don't think you are learning anything either about religious people.
__________________
"If you want a vision of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face - forever."

"War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength."

"In a time of universal deceit - telling the truth is a revolutionary act."

George Orwell

Obama simply wants to be the one wearing the "boot".
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 07-08-2009, 5:59 AM
NightMgr NightMgr is offline
Retired
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: DFW, TX
Posts: 6,095
NightMgr has disabled reputation
Default

Perhaps some don't recognize this as an important issue because their religious belief isn't prohibited under the claim that it's not a legitimate religion.

So much for the followers of freedom of religion. It seems the real value is freedom for your own religion.

Which is really ironic given Rifleman's.sig line. I guess the point you resist will be when it's your religious views that are in trouble. If it's the religious views of others, why bother?
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 07-08-2009, 10:50 PM
Rifleman's Avatar
Rifleman Rifleman is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 10,019
Rifleman is a name known to allRifleman is a name known to allRifleman is a name known to allRifleman is a name known to allRifleman is a name known to allRifleman is a name known to all
Default

Quote:
Perhaps some don't recognize this as an important issue because their religious belief isn't prohibited under the claim that it's not a legitimate religion.

So much for the followers of freedom of religion. It seems the real value is freedom for your own religion.

Which is really ironic given Rifleman's.sig line. I guess the point you resist will be when it's your religious views that are in trouble. If it's the religious views of others, why bother?
I agree with you, my religious beliefs are already being trashed, and trashed by government. What I am saying "is a phoney issue", is the delegitimization by a judge of a certain religion for a specific ruling. When a particular judge would call a particular belief an illigitimate religion, he has already violated the First Amendment, so your reflection upon what makes a legitimate religion is simply answered cynically: Whatever the judge wants to make illegitimate.

That is why I don't bother to define it, since it is a waste of time, when activist judges ignore the law. The entire issue is a very sore subject from me and for your sake I will not delve into the evolution issue. I attended a "Christian" University, such as they are. If they accept or allow their students to accept governmental loans and grants, the Government exercises a certain level of control over the University, including course content. That is why the College where I attended has so many courses that teach doctrines that are against Christian teaching. I guess we should be "happy" that they still "allow" Bible being taught as a subject. When I was in High School, it was allowed, no more. So established religions fare no better than individuals.
__________________
"If you want a vision of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face - forever."

"War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength."

"In a time of universal deceit - telling the truth is a revolutionary act."

George Orwell

Obama simply wants to be the one wearing the "boot".
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 6:11 AM..


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.5
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©1998 - 2007, Goldtalk